It's meant to be based on difficulty, height of the mtn, remoteness and historical value.
The list is full of ridiculous peaks and points where they shouldnt be...
ILUVSWTAS wrote:It's meant to be based on difficulty, height of the mtn, remoteness and historical value.
The list is full of ridiculous peaks and points where they shouldnt be...
ollster wrote: Classifying for information purposes on how difficult to get to, or how technical/scrubby/rocky/exposed a route is, does make some sense though. Historical reasons - that's cute, but not useful.
MJD wrote:That would be "route bagging" as opposed to "peak bagging" where you only have to touch the top and how you got there doesn't matter.
Now who wants to start a "route bagging" list - might keep Mr G busy when he runs out of peaks to do!
ollster wrote:MJD wrote:That would be "route bagging" as opposed to "peak bagging" where you only have to touch the top and how you got there doesn't matter.
Now who wants to start a "route bagging" list - might keep Mr G busy when he runs out of peaks to do!
Mr G's already started that hasn't he? I've not been on many walks with him, but I think 2/3 he was doing a repeat because he "hadn't been there via that way before" or similar. He's keen, that's for sure!
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests